Facts

In October 2004, a fire occurred at plaintiff Bennett Hirschhorn's rent-controlled apartment in San Francisco. The fire was caused by a defective heater. In order to extinguish the fire, firefighters had to break into the walls and ceiling of plaintiff's apartment. Further, objects inside the apartment were damaged.

The apartment complex managers, defendants, offered to lease plaintiff three other units. Plaintiff declined the offer and decided to rent a hotel room. He then signed a lease with a different company.

Plaintiff claimed that six months after the fire, his apartment was still uninhabitable. Plaintiff sued defendants, alleging violation of the San Francisco Rent Ordinance, and for property damage.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The failure to timely repair the apartment constituted, in part, breach of an implied warranty of habitability, negligence, nuisance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, constructive eviction, and intentional misrepresentation. Plaintiff should have been compensated for the personal items that sustained damage in the fire, but defendants' insurance company delayed payment.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
In a cross-complaint for negligent repair, defendants blamed the company that had repaired the heater 36 hours before the fire occurred.

Defendant Irene Novak, the property manager, acted in good faith during the time she worked to repair the apartment. Plaintiff declined defendant's offer of another apartment to reside in while his went through repairs. Therefore, plaintiff could not substantiate his constructive eviction claim. Further, plaintiff would not cooperate with defendant or her insurance company. He also refused to permit the removal of his belongings, which was necessary to execute repairs.

Damages

Plaintiff claimed $150,000 in damages to cover his lost belongings. Plaintiff also claimed compensatory and punitive damages to compensate him for his constructive and wrongful eviction allegation. He contended that he should recover the difference between the actual rent and the fair market value of the rent-controlled property that he lost. Defendants asserted that plaintiff's claims were excessive. Further, plaintiff failed to timely submit documentation to support his claim.

Result

The parties reached a $195,000 settlement. The distrbitutor of the defective gas valve and the heater repair company contributed to the payments to plaintiff.